Z Texas can become a superset of Bath -- Bath as basic; Z Texas would had additional functionality

Specifics on changing Z Texas to align with Bath

SUTRS at level 0 -- this requirement currently makes Z Texas Profile not conformant to Bath

Possibly make SUTRS a client requirement; servers deal only with MARC

SUTRS requirement means that whatever the server sends (can be formatted or not) is displayed with no modification on client end

Straw vote -- question whether we prefer to have a Z Texas Profile that we cannot comply to (because it requires SUTRS) or do we prefer to have Z Texas Profile be the Bath Profile minus the SUTRS requirement? Majority would prefer to have Z Texas Profile be the Bath Profile minue SUTRS

Like the idea of having client deal with both MARC 21 and UNIMARC -- one research library consortium in UK will output only SUTRS -- they could possibly output a pseudo-MARC like OCLC (without important indicators/sub-fields); if consortium decides to stay with SUTRS, then we could like a list of those libraries whose catalogs we will not be able to search unless we have clients that can deal with SUTRS

Requirement: Be sure the MARC 21 servers support the MARC 21 character set

Aligning searching with Bath; went through September minutes to look at differences in search capabilities

Made some changes in attributes to ask Bath to consider

Standard Identifier Search -- ask that the Structure attribute be changed to 1/phrase because some identifiers have spaces in them, thereby no providing satisfactory results if 2/word is used

Standard Identifier Search -- ask that the Completness attribute be changed to 1/incomplete subfield because there are revision/modification phrases tacked onto the end of LCCNs and ISBNs

Standard Identifer Search -- Use attribute 50 is SuDoc number, so should this should be called out in the call number/classification search, not here; could not find a use attribute for GPO item number for this search; this information is normally found in the 074 |a.

Date of Publication Search -- ask that the Completeness attribute be changed to 1/incomplete subfield as you might be searching the 260 |c, which can have other information after the date

Date of Publication and Standard Identifier will become Z Texas Category 1 searches in order to come into compliance with Bath

Call Number/Classification Searches

Should we create multiple searches, one for each specific class scheme? Should we create a single search for a generic call number and/or class number?

Decided to ask for separate searches for Dewey, LC, NLM, SuDocs, TX Doc Number and also a combined search -- first in field, phrase, incomplete subfield, right truncation

Bath Level 0 and 1 would equal the first level of Z Texas. Z Texas would change its numbering system to reflect the Bath two levels. Z Texas level 2 could be conditional, based on what you support in your library, e.g., if you use Dewey, you wouldn't provide NLM searching

Problem with Form/Genre and Function -- need to create a use attribute semantic other than subject (although they are found in the 655 and 657 fields); archives use these two fields, but public libraries could also use Form/Genre (love stories, Christian fiction) quite a bit; both searches could easily be used as stand-alone searches as well as qualifying searches

Ask ZIG if they know of use attribute that can be used for 655 |a and 657 |a -- if not, then ask for new one

Shelley Almgren and Chris Peterson will provide more detail on these two fields before the next meeting

TRAIL uses Dublin Core and Bib-1 attribute set already; ready to incorporate Z39.50; can send many types of retrieval records (MARC, SUTRS, GILS, XML, etc.); should libraries able to get a brief record or full record or both? Prefer to have TRAIL always send full record; leave it to client to decide what it wants to see

Allen -- configure TRAIL for Z Texas functional area A/levels 0 and 1; export MARC 21 format by April 2000; possibility of having testbed available for January meeting

MARC Mapping/Indexing Guidance

Use two UNT students will serve as organizers so a serious look can be made at the tags used in Z Texas

Z Client Update/Bob Gaines/Interoperability Testing

Ready to start testing, but no servers as yet; hope to remedy this soon

TLA Programs

Z Texas: Will It Fly? -- Wednesday, 12:00pm - 2:50pm

Change to dealing with problems you may encounter in implementing Z Texas